PHSD finance committee looks to scale back proposed press box
Above, a conceptual rendering of the proposed press box for Yuhas-McGinley Stadium. School board finance committee officials have asked that the plans, estimated to cost more than $2 million, be scaled back. SUBMITTED ARTWORK BY ARCHITECTURAL INNOVATIONS
Photo by Penn Hills Progress
Members of the Penn Hills School District's finance committee don't seem to think that a potentially $2 million, three-level press box is necessary.
Finance committee members at their Jan. 28 meeting expressed some reservations after being presented with site plans from Architectural Innovations showing a three-level press box with a booster club/concession sales area on the bottom floor, a press level on the third floor and what was labeled a “board member viewing area” on the second floor.
Board and finance committee member Carl Barbarino said the initial set of drawings shown to the school board also included a press box with only two levels. Several committee members expressed an interest in eliminating the “board member viewing area.”
Barbarino suggested eliminating a level “and seeing where the cost is at.”
Business director Richard Liberto said he would poll the board before proceeding, and added he hopes to have the press box complete in time for the first home football game of the 2013 season.
The current press box, which Liberto said was built in the 1960s, must be updated to come into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, now that the rest of the stadium has been upgraded with new turf, new bleachers and a new scoreboard.
Patrick Varine is an editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7845 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.